Table 1.
Methodological Quality of Included Studies
| Study | Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale |
Final Score | Quality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |||
| del Pozo-Cruz et al, 201124 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Good |
| Wang et al, 201925 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | Good |
| Kim et al, 201826 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Good |
| Yang et al, 201527 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Fair |
| Wegener et al, 201928 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Fair |
| Jung et al, 202029 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Fair |
| Sajadi et al, 201930 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
The Physiotherapy Evidence Database Scale numbers represent the following: (1) eligibility criteria mentioned; (2) random allocation to groups or to treatment order in case of crossover trial; (3) concealed allocation; (4) baseline similarity; (5) blinding of participants; (6) blinding of therapists; (7) blinding of assessors; (8) acceptable follow-up; (9) intention-to-treat analysis; (10) between-group statistics; (11) point measures and measures of variability. “1” represents satisfied criterion and “0” represents unsatisfied criterion. Rating of the quality: good quality, 6-8; fair quality, 4-5; and poor quality, below 4.